|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 886 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1346
Issues involved:
The appeal against conviction and sentence under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The issues include delay in lodging the FIR, identification of the perpetrator, voluntariness of the prosecutrix's actions, and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements.
Delay in lodging FIR:
The defense argued that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR after the incident on 27.7.1997, with the FIR being registered on 5.8.1997. The defense contended that this delay was used to manipulate facts. However, no satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided.
Identification of the perpetrator:
The defense highlighted that in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutrix did not name the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Instead, she implicated other individuals. This raised doubts about the accuracy of the allegations against the appellant.
Voluntariness of the prosecutrix's actions:
The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, suggesting she was a consenting party who willingly left her home. The absence of evidence of coercion or forceful abduction raised questions about the voluntariness of her actions. The prosecutrix's behavior, including traveling by public transport without raising alarms, indicated a level of autonomy in her movements.
Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements:
The court observed significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements at different stages of the legal proceedings. These inconsistencies, coupled with changes in her version of events, cast doubt on the reliability of her testimony. The court found discrepancies in her identification of the perpetrators and the sequence of events, leading to a lack of credibility in the prosecution's case.
Judgment:
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the judgment of conviction and sentence against him was set aside. The decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence linking the appellant to the alleged crimes and the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1345
Issues involved: Appeals against deletion of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1996-97, 98-99, 1999-2000, and 2001-02.
Assessment Year 1996-97:
- The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on certain transactions.
- CIT(A) set aside the assessment order for re-examination.
- Subsequent orders confirmed disallowance of depreciation.
- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed.
- ITAT's order set aside the matter for re-decision.
- Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-decide after quantum appeal decision.
- Appeal allowed for statistical purpose.
Assessment Year 1998-99:
- Excess depreciation claims on transactions disallowed.
- CIT(A) confirmed disallowance of depreciation.
- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed.
- ITAT set aside the excess claim of depreciation.
- Depreciation on windmills allowed.
- Counsel for assessee provided relevant details.
- Appeal dismissed.
Assessment Year 1999-00:
- Excess depreciation claim on windmills disallowed.
- CIT(A) confirmed disallowance of depreciation.
- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed.
- ITAT allowed the claim of depreciation on windmills.
- Counsel for assessee presented facts and details.
- Appeal dismissed.
Assessment Year 2001-02:
- Disallowance of depreciation on windmills.
- CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed.
- ITAT allowed the claim of depreciation on windmills.
- Counsel for assessee provided necessary information.
- Appeal dismissed.
In summary, the ITAT Chennai upheld the deletion of penalties for assessment years 1998-99, 1999-00, and 2001-02 as the additions on which penalties were based had been deleted. For the assessment year 1996-97, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-decision following ITAT's direction after quantum appeal decision. The appeal for the assessment year 1996-97 was allowed for statistical purposes, while the other appeals were dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1344
Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the Insurance Company is entitled to deduct tax at source (TDS) on payments made under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically in relation to interest income accruing on compensation amounts awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Tribunal's non-application of mind regarding TDS deduction
The High Court observed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had not properly considered the provisions of Section 194(A) of the Income-tax Act before directing the Insurance Company to deposit the TDS amount. The Court emphasized the importance of Tribunals understanding and applying relevant legal provisions before making decisions.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 194(A) of the Income-tax Act
Section 194(A) of the Income-tax Act mandates TDS deduction on interest income exceeding Rs.50,000 accruing on payments made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court highlighted the requirement for TDS deduction when interest income surpasses the specified threshold.
Issue 3: Individual assessment of claimants for TDS deduction
The Court clarified that TDS should be deducted based on the interest income of each individual claimant separately, as per the provisions of Section 194(A)(ix). It emphasized that each claimant is considered a separate entity for TDS purposes, and the aggregate interest income of each claimant should be assessed individually to determine TDS applicability.
Final Judgment:
The petition filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed, with the directive to deposit the TDS amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, the Insurance Company was granted the right to claim a refund of the deposited tax upon presenting the Court's order. The judgment also instructed the circulation of the decision to all Nationalized Insurance Companies and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State for reference.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1343
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on solatium u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Whether the petitioners are estopped from claiming interest on solatium.
3. Appropriate forum for deciding the entitlement to interest on solatium.
Summary:
1. Entitlement to interest on solatium u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act:
The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion claiming interest on solatium while receiving compensation for lands acquired for Defence purposes. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to interest on solatium u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunder V/s. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211, which held that solatium forms an integral part of compensation and interest is payable on it. The Court acknowledged that solatium is part of the compensation and if interest is payable under Section 34, the landholder is entitled to it. The Court referred to the statutory duty of the Collector to compute and pay compensation inclusive of statutory allowances and interest.
2. Whether the petitioners are estopped from claiming interest on solatium:
The respondents contended that the petitioners were estopped from claiming interest on solatium as they did not raise this issue before the Apex Court or during the acceptance of compensation in the Contempt Petition. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioners had claimed interest on solatium in a letter dated 21-12-1998 and accepted compensation under protest. The Court emphasized that the statutory provisions entitle the petitioners to claim interest on solatium, and the failure to raise the issue earlier does not preclude them from doing so now.
3. Appropriate forum for deciding the entitlement to interest on solatium:
The Court considered whether it should decide the entitlement to interest on solatium or remand the matter to the Collector. The Court concluded that the Collector, being statutorily obliged, should decide the entitlement and quantify the interest payable. The Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to hear the petitioners and the respondent's representative and decide the issue within six weeks from 20-12-2010. The Court also allowed the withdrawal of Writ Petition No.1912 of 2010 with liberty to file a fresh petition and noted the withdrawal of Contempt Petition No.72 of 2010 in light of the order.
Directions:
1. The SLAO is directed to decide the petitioners' entitlement to interest on solatium u/s 34 of the Act.
2. The petitioners and respondents may present relevant material and judgments.
3. The SLAO to decide the issue within six weeks from 20-12-2010, with cooperation from both parties.
Additional Orders:
- Writ Petition No.1912 of 2010 is withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.
- Contempt Petition No.72 of 2010 is withdrawn.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1342
Issues involved: Determination of excessive compensation for acquired land, appropriate multiplier for market value calculation, award of additional amount and interest under specific sections of the Land Acquisition Act.
Compensation Determination:
The Respondents owned a sweet lime orchard acquired for a percolation tank construction. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at Rs. 16,000/- per acre, but the Reference Court determined market value at Rs. 12,28,500/- using the yield capitalisation method. The High Court upheld this amount, leading to the appeal on the excessive compensation issue.
Multiplier for Market Value Calculation:
The State challenged the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Reference Court, arguing for a lower multiplier of 8 or a maximum of 10. The Respondent cited the precedent in Union of India v. Shanti Devi, supporting a multiplier of 13. The Supreme Court reviewed various decisions and settled on a standard multiplier of 10 for the orchard land, resulting in compensation of Rs. 9,45,000/- for the acquired land with trees.
Award of Additional Amount and Interest:
The Reference Court awarded additional amount under Section 23(1A) and interest under Section 28 from the date of possession. The Supreme Court clarified that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is only applicable if possession is taken after the notification under Section 4(1) and interest under Section 28 should start from the date of preliminary notification. However, the Respondents were entitled to damages for wrongful use and occupation from the date of possession till the notification date, calculated at Rs. 94,500/- per annum with interest at 6% per annum.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, determining the compensation at Rs. 9,45,000/- with solatium, awarding damages for use and occupation at Rs. 4,72,500/-, and specifying the interest rates applicable under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1341
Dishonour of Cheque - drawing of presumptions - whether the signature found in the cheque belongs to the accused or not? - procrastinating the proceedings - Petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the cheque to the Forensic Science Expert to ascertain the age of the ink - HELD THAT:- On the basis of choosy and discerning performance of researches, the authors have provided procedures and devices, with reference to the names of chemicals and reagents to be utilised, to solve the issue and it is incumbent upon the experts to put the authoritative theories and the latest proved and established technologies to empirical use. They have to take the inventiveness drawing the proven and accepted principles from well settled authorities and the Government have to provide necessary latest infrastructures in the Document Division of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and also allot necessary funds for the constitution of sophisticated laboratory which is a full-fledged one in this regard.
The scientist can elect non-destructive technique where there is no scope of destruction of disputed document. When the authorities effectively suggest various methods for subjecting a document for this purpose, it is high time for the scientists of this State and the Government committed them in use in practice. When the science has flourished to show enormous, remarkable, striking and much advanced improvements in all other fields, while sufficient ways and means are available in this sphere, they cannot be disregarded and thrown overboard. The State shall take every possible step to provide the justice delivery system to unearth actual evidence available in a case. If the scientists or experts come across any difficulties, they can very well bring to the notice of the authorities concerned. At their request and proposal, the Government shall allocate necessary means.
The expression that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the country or State, more particularly in the Forensic Science Department for scientific assessment of the age of handwriting to offer opinion is far from acceptance. A careful survey of the above authorities would unveil a fact that settled plans of actions for experiments are very much available and when one steps into such experiments, there is further scope for upswing in the technology. It is bounden duty of the official concerned to follow the procedures - The scientists/experts should appear before the Courts with opinionated evidence in this regard, on their successful accomplishment of this assignment.
The advancements in establishing the facts in this field as a science continue through today. The explosion of modern technology has influenced every facet of our lives, from introducing new avenues of written communications to improvements in ink and ergonomic design of writing instruments - since various scientific avenues are available for finding out the age of the ink in a document, it must be subjected to tests as suggested by various scientists.
The disputed document has to be referred to the expert for ascertaining the age of the ink and practical hardships, if any, sustained by the expert shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court shall thereafter act according to the settled principles and procedures, in affording appropriate opportunity to the accused to prove his defence. Hence, interference with the order challenged before this Court has become inevitable, which is set aside - Revision allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1340
Issues involved: Challenge to the legality and validity of order directing Insurance Company to deduct T.D.S. from award amount u/s 194-A(3)(ix) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1: Legality of T.D.S. deduction by Insurance Company
The petitioner challenged the order directing the Insurance Company to deduct T.D.S. from the award amount, arguing compliance with Section 194-A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to deposit the T.D.S. amount, leading to the present dispute.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Income Tax Act provisions
The petitioner contended that T.D.S. deduction was mandatory u/s 194-A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing judgments of Gujarat and M.P. High Courts. In contrast, the respondent argued against T.D.S. deduction from the interest component of the award amount.
Issue 3: Applicability of Section 194-A of Income Tax Act
Section 194-A mandates T.D.S. deduction on interest income, including compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The clause (ix) specifying the threshold for T.D.S. deduction was inserted in 2003, post the award date in this case.
Judgment:
The High Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, supported by precedents from Gujarat and M.P. High Courts. It held that the Insurance Company was justified in deducting T.D.S. from the interest component of the award amount. Consequently, the impugned order directing T.D.S. deposit was quashed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1339
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash deposits.
2. Admission of additional evidence without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Reliability of agricultural yield statistics.
4. Consideration of extraneous issues.
5. Determination of other sources of income.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The AO noted deposits of about Rs. 25 lacs in the appellant's bank account and issued an unsigned notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, an agriculturist, did not file a return of income, leading the AO to pass an assessment u/s 144, treating Rs. 21,34,162 as income from other sources. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the AO's basis for non-acceptance of gross agricultural produce was incorrect and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of cotton production was unsubstantiated and that the CIT(A) correctly considered the statistics from Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (MPKV), which supported higher yields for irrigated land.
2. Admission of Additional Evidence Without Providing Opportunity to AO:
The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in the form of revised 7/12 extracts without providing an opportunity to the AO as required under rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should have completed the appellate proceedings after obtaining a remand report from the AO, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The relevant grounds of the revenue were allowed.
3. Reliability of Agricultural Yield Statistics:
The AO relied on district-level statistics for cotton yield, while the appellant provided MPKV statistics showing higher yields for irrigated land. The Tribunal noted that both sets of statistics were estimates and emphasized the need for credible and comparable data. The AO was directed to re-examine the matter, considering the specific conditions of the appellant's land.
4. Consideration of Extraneous Issues:
The CIT(A) was criticized for considering extraneous issues such as non-investments during the year, which were irrelevant to the source of bank deposits. The Tribunal highlighted the need for the AO to focus on the actual agricultural practices and production evidence.
5. Determination of Other Sources of Income:
The AO argued that the appellant, a sitting MLA, had other sources of income, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the revenue had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim and directed the AO to investigate the appellant's income sources, including any benefits received as an MLA.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found several deficiencies in the orders of the revenue and the CIT(A), including the failure to adhere to natural justice principles and the lack of credible evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the AO was directed to redo the assessment, granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1338
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the CAT.
2. Commanding the CAT to admit and decide the original application on merit.
3. Indulgence against the CAT's order flouting the High Court's order dated March 3, 2009.
4. Issuance of any other writ, direction, or order deemed fit.
Summary:
Issue 1: Quashing the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the CAT
The Petitioners sought to quash the CAT's order dated 07.05.2009, which declined to admit their Original Application (O.A.) on the grounds of limitation. The High Court had previously directed the CAT to dispose of the O.A. on merits if filed within two months from the order dated 03.03.2009.
Issue 2: Commanding the CAT to admit and decide the original application on merit
The Petitioners argued that the CAT violated the High Court's order dated 03.03.2009 by not disposing of the O.A. on merits. The High Court had explicitly directed that the O.A. should be disposed of in accordance with law on merits, and it was not open for the CAT to interpret the order otherwise.
Issue 3: Indulgence against the CAT's order flouting the High Court's order dated March 3, 2009
The Petitioners contended that the CAT's decision to dismiss the O.A. on the ground of limitation was in contempt of the High Court's order. The High Court emphasized that the CAT should have adhered to the directive to decide the matter on merits, and the CAT's action bordered on contempt of the High Court's order.
Issue 4: Issuance of any other writ, direction, or order deemed fit
The High Court noted that the CAT should have provided a complete hearing to both parties and should have kept the petition pending if the reliefs sought were similar to those in the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court set aside the CAT's impugned order and remitted the case back to the CAT, directing it to decide the O.A. in terms of the High Court's order dated 03.03.2009. The CAT was instructed to hear the matter within two months and decide based on whether the reliefs and grounds were substantially different from those in the pending Special Leave Petition.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the High Court setting aside the CAT's order and directing the CAT to restore the O.A. to its original number and decide it on merits as per the High Court's previous order. The CAT was also cautioned to ensure judicial propriety and provide a complete hearing to the parties involved.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1337
Issues involved: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Madurai for assessment year 2006-07 regarding depreciation on transformer and allowance of additional depreciation on windmill.
Depreciation on transformer: The assessee claimed depreciation on transformer as part of windmill installation. AO treated the cost of electrical yard as transformer separately and disallowed a portion of the claimed depreciation. Ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation on the transformer based on relevant case laws. ITAT Chennai upheld CIT(A)'s decision citing the requirement of operational connectivity for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) and dismissed Revenue's appeal.
Additional depreciation on windmill: Revenue appealed against allowance of additional depreciation on windmill u/s 32(1)(iia). ITAT Chennai referred to previous decisions including the assessee's own case where additional depreciation was allowed on the cost of windmill. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
Conclusion: The ITAT Chennai upheld the decisions of the ld. CIT(A) regarding depreciation on transformer and additional depreciation on windmill, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The judgment was pronounced on 16.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1336
Issues involved: Appeal by revenue and Cross-objection by assessee against order of CIT(A) regarding additions of selling expenses, disallowance of Employee's/Employer's contribution u/s 43B, and TDS credit.
Additions of Selling Expenses: The assessee had incurred advertisement expenditure which was partially disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted similar disallowances in earlier years, where the first appellate authority had deleted the additions. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, it was found that no infirmity existed in the order of the first appellate authority. Thus, the appeal of the revenue on this issue was dismissed.
Disallowance of Employee's/Employer's Contribution u/s 43B: The Tribunal considered the proviso added to sec. 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, and the dates of deposit during relevant months. It was observed that the amounts were paid by the assessee before the due date, supported by evidence. Various legal precedents were cited in favor of the assessee, and the Tribunal affirmed the stand of the CIT(A), dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.
TDS Credit: The revenue contended that no opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding TDS credit. However, it was found that necessary details were furnished by the assessee along with returns, and the TDS was deducted on interest income credited to the Profit & Loss Account. The factual finding was not disputed by the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal on this ground.
Conclusion: Both appeals of the revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 9th December 2010, in the presence of counsel from both sides.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1335
Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain appeals under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 related to seized currency recovered from individuals attempting to illegally export it as baggage.
Jurisdictional Issue:
The appeal questioned whether the learned Tribunal had the authority to entertain appeals against the Commissioner of Customs under section 129A, considering the proviso that restricts appeals related to goods imported or exported as baggage. The appellant argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to this proviso, rendering its previous judgment null and void.
Factual Background:
Two passengers were intercepted at the airport for attempting to illegally export Indian currency in their baggage, leading to seizure and adjudication proceedings. The Joint Commissioner of Customs ordered the release of the seized currencies without imposing personal penalties. An appeal was filed under section 129D of the Customs Act, which was allowed, setting aside the adjudicating officer's order.
Contentions and Arguments:
The appellant contended that the seized currency should be considered as baggage, falling under the proviso to section 129A. However, the respondents argued that currency and baggage are distinct items as per legislative provisions and definitions. They emphasized that the case did not meet the criteria specified in the proviso.
Decision and Rationale:
The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that currency and baggage are separate items as defined in the Act. The definition of goods includes currency and negotiable instruments, while baggage is distinct. The Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly determined that the seized currency was not part of the baggage. Therefore, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal under section 129A.
Conclusion:
The Court answered the questions regarding jurisdiction in favor of the Tribunal and directed the concerned department to implement the Tribunal's earlier order regarding the release of the seized currency after deducting fines and penalties. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1334
Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals for assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08, with the assessee appealing against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for 2005-06, and the Revenue appealing against the same for 2007-08, along with cross objections by the assessee for 2007-08.
For Asst. Year 2005-06 (Assessee's appeal):
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the taxability of various incomes under the principles of mutuality, specifically challenging the treatment of guest fees, income from rooms, and lawn booking charges as taxable income. The Tribunal, citing previous decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that these incomes are exempt under the principle of mutuality.
For Asst. Year 2007-08 (Revenue's appeal):
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to exempt guest fees, income from room charges, and hiring of lawn under the principles of mutuality. The Tribunal, relying on past decisions, upheld the exemption, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Detailed Summary:
For the Asst. Year 2005-06, the assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s ruling on the taxability of guest fees, income from rooms, and lawn booking charges. The Tribunal, referencing previous decisions, held that these incomes are exempt under the principle of mutuality, as established by the Apex Court's judgment in Chelmsford Club vs. CIT 243 ITR 89.
In the Asst. Year 2007-08, the Revenue contested the exemption of guest fees, income from room charges, and hiring of lawn under the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal, in line with earlier rulings, upheld the exemption, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The cross objections by the assessee for 2007-08 were in support of the CIT(A)'s decision, which was upheld by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals for both years were decided in favor of the assessee for 2005-06 and against the Revenue for 2007-08, with the cross objections also being dismissed.
The judgment was pronounced on 10/12/10 by the Tribunal in open court.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1333
Issues Involved:
1. Right to Employment under Article 21.
2. Implementation and Utilization of Funds under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA).
3. Allegations of Corruption and Mismanagement in the State of Orissa.
4. Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Right to Employment under Article 21:
The Court examined whether the 'right to employment' is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment referenced earlier cases, such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, where the 'right to livelihood' was recognized as integral to the 'right to life.' However, in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, the Court held that the right to employment is not included under Article 21 but acknowledged that the law is dynamic and the right to employment might be considered a fundamental right in the future.
2. Implementation and Utilization of Funds under NREGA:
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) aims to provide at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in rural areas. The Act mandates the creation of schemes and the provision of unemployment allowances if work is not provided. The Court reviewed the statutory obligations of the Central and State Governments under the Act, including the establishment of councils, preparation of schemes, and payment of wages and allowances. The Act's provisions were designed to ensure effective implementation and utilization of funds, with mechanisms for social audits, grievance redressal, and accountability.
3. Allegations of Corruption and Mismanagement in the State of Orissa:
The petitioners alleged significant mismanagement and corruption in the implementation of NREGA in Orissa, claiming that 75% of funds were siphoned off by officials. The Court noted the shocking findings of the petitioner's survey, which highlighted discrepancies in job cards, partial wage payments, and the creation of false records. The State of Orissa denied these allegations but failed to provide specific data to counter the claims effectively. The Court observed that the affidavits filed by the State and Union of India did not statistically deny the allegations, and no final inquiry report had been submitted.
4. Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms:
The Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the Central and State Governments to ensure the proper implementation of NREGA. It noted the failure of the authorities to exercise supervisory and investigative powers effectively. The Court issued specific directions for compliance, including the filing of affidavits by the Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development and the Chief Secretary of Orissa, addressing the allegations and providing detailed data on fund utilization, employment provided, social audits conducted, and actions taken against officials found guilty of contraventions.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that both the Union of India and the State of Orissa had failed to implement NREGA effectively, resulting in the deprivation of the entitled class from receiving employment and allowances. The Court issued detailed directions for compliance and accountability, including the possibility of a CBI investigation. The case was adjourned for four weeks for further compliance and response from the concerned authorities.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1332
Issues involved: Criminal revisions against conviction and sentence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Endorsement on cheques and holder in due course
The accused filed revisions against conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant filed private complaints as holder in due course of cheques issued by the accused. The accused objected to the complaints' maintainability due to lack of endorsement on the cheques by the original lender. Both lower courts presumed due endorsement and found the accused guilty.
Issue 2: Interpretation of due endorsement
The main issue was whether the holder's signature on the cheques constituted due endorsement, giving the complainant the right as holder in due course. The High Court considered legal precedents where due endorsement was crucial for establishing holder in due course status. The court emphasized the necessity of proving consideration for becoming the possessor of the cheques.
Judgment:
The High Court allowed the criminal revisions, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. It held that without due endorsement and proof of consideration, the complainant failed to establish holder in due course status. The complaints were rejected, and the accused were directed to be refunded the fine paid.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1331
Issues involved:
The petition seeks to quash the proceedings in STC No. 1126/2010 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the grounds of absence of subsisting liability, lack of consideration for the cheque, time-barred debt, and maintainability of the criminal complaint.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Lack of subsisting liability and absence of consideration for the cheque
The Respondent filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the Petitioner failed to provide accounts for a business transaction with the complainant's wife, resulting in a cheque being dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Petitioner contended that there was no legally enforceable debt as the cheque was issued in the name of the complainant, not the actual creditor. The learned senior counsel argued that the alleged debt was time-barred, making the proceedings unsustainable.
Issue 2: Time-barred debt and legal enforceability
Citing legal precedents, the Petitioner's counsel emphasized that a cheque for a time-barred debt is not legally enforceable, as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The courts have held that a cheque drawn for a debt that is not legally recoverable cannot lead to liability u/s 138. The Respondent argued that the debt was legally enforceable, as the Petitioner had admitted the liability before issuing the cheque.
Issue 3: Abuse of process of law and interference by the Court
The Court considered the facts presented and concluded that the complainant's claim was based on a business transaction from 2003, with the cheque issued only after a demand for profits in 2008. The Court found that the debt, if any, was payable to the complainant's wife, not the Petitioner. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court can intervene if there is an abuse of process of law, leading to harassment. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings in STC No. 1126/2010, as it deemed fit to interfere due to the lack of a legally enforceable debt and potential abuse of process.
This judgment highlights the importance of legal enforceability and consideration in cheque transactions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for a genuine debt or liability for liability u/s 138.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1330
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case relates to the eligibility of Hans Chap Khaini, a Chewing Tobacco, for tax exemption as per a Government Notification. The Assessing Authority denied the exemption, leading to a detention order challenged in the proceedings.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Eligibility for Tax Exemption
The petitioner claimed tax exemption for Chewing Tobacco based on a government order dated 12.10.2009. The Joint Commissioner's order supported the exemption, citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding similar products. The petitioner argued that the Joint Commissioner's order is binding on the Assessing Authority.
Issue 2: Validity of Joint Commissioner's Order
The Additional Government Pleader contended that the Joint Commissioner's decision exceeded legal limits and cannot extend the exemption to Hans Chap Khaini Chewing Tobacco. The Department planned to appeal the order. It was argued that the Joint Commissioner's decision is not binding on the Assessing Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue 3: Binding Nature of Superior Authority's Order
While acknowledging the general binding nature of superior authority's orders, the Court noted that the petitioner challenged the detention order before the Court. The Court emphasized that it must decide on the petitioner's case, despite the distinction between the Joint Commissioner's order and the Supreme Court judgment. The Court directed the release of detained goods upon the petitioner paying 50% of the demanded amount, pending final adjudication by the respondents.
In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to release the detained goods, subject to the petitioner's payment and final adjudication.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1329
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 3,73,760 levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO. The penalty was imposed for three additions: excess payment of purchases to a sister concern, disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB, and disallowance u/s 40A(2). However, the Tribunal found that the quantum additions were deleted, and thus, the penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that if the quantum addition does not survive, the levy of penalty is not applicable. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that penalty cannot be imposed if the impugned amount is disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO was canceled, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) due to the deletion of quantum additions. The decision was based on the principle that if the income is disclosed in the return, penalty for concealment is not applicable.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1328
Issues Involved:
1. Investigation and progress of cases handled by SIT (CBI).
2. Allegations against various advocates.
3. Confidentiality and progress of Special Income Tax Investigation Committee.
4. Application for setting aside ex parte order and cross FIR assignment to CBI.
5. Legal position on the application of the Code of Civil Procedure in writ matters.
6. Complaints and issues raised by the petitioner.
7. Measures to address criminal activities within the legal profession.
8. Suggestions by the Law Commission of India.
9. Proposals for regulating the realty sector to curb black money and illegal activities.
10. Directions for framing rules and legislative measures.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Investigation and Progress of Cases Handled by SIT (CBI):
The court reviewed the status report submitted by SIT (CBI), which detailed the progress of investigations into 11 cases. The court expressed satisfaction with the efforts and progress made. The report mentioned that 96 persons had been examined who might be cited as witnesses. The court listed the First Information Reports (FIRs) registered along with the names of the accused and the allegations against them, covering various incidents of violence, threats, and property-related crimes involving advocates.
2. Allegations Against Various Advocates:
The allegations included incidents of advocates damaging court property, assaulting court staff, threatening and assaulting individuals, and engaging in fraudulent property transactions. Specific cases were highlighted, such as the rampage by advocates led by Parshuram Mishra, threats and assaults by Shiv Sharan Upadhyay, and land grabbing by a group of lawyers through forgery.
3. Confidentiality and Progress of Special Income Tax Investigation Committee:
The court noted the confidential nature of the investigation by the Special Income Tax Investigation Committee and refrained from disclosing any information contained in the report. The court acknowledged that the process would take some time.
4. Application for Setting Aside Ex Parte Order and Cross FIR Assignment to CBI:
The court referred to the legal position regarding the application of the Code of Civil Procedure in writ matters, citing various judgments, including Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., which clarified that writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not subject to the procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court allowed the application to the extent of assigning the investigation of Cross FIR 378/2010 to SIT (CBI) but rejected the prayer for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.10.2010.
5. Legal Position on the Application of the Code of Civil Procedure in Writ Matters:
The court discussed the legal position elaborated by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that writ proceedings under Article 226 aim to provide speedy and efficacious remedies and are not bound by the procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court reiterated that the High Court has the discretion to adopt its own procedure in writ matters.
6. Complaints and Issues Raised by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Prashant Singh Gaur, highlighted the prevailing unruly atmosphere in the District Court premises, marked by incidents of violence and criminal activities by some advocates. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and emphasized the need for extraordinary measures to address the issue.
7. Measures to Address Criminal Activities Within the Legal Profession:
The court issued several orders to tackle the criminal activities within the legal profession, including the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a Joint Director of CBI, and the involvement of various authorities like the Intelligence Bureau, Bar Councils, and Income Tax Department. The court also sought views from the Law Commission of India and other authorities on measures to protect the legal profession from criminal elements.
8. Suggestions by the Law Commission of India:
The Law Commission of India provided several suggestions, including tracking criminal cases against advocates, initiating disciplinary action based on chargesheets, and framing rules for disqualification from enrollment in case of involvement in criminal acts. The Commission also emphasized the need for verification of law degree certificates and suggested measures for expeditious investigation and trial of criminal cases involving advocates.
9. Proposals for Regulating the Realty Sector to Curb Black Money and Illegal Activities:
The court discussed the need to regulate the realty sector to curb black money and illegal activities. It proposed the setting up of a National Property Exchange to ensure transparency in property transactions and suggested measures like reintroducing certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, implementing Tax Collection at Source (TCS), and introducing the concept of "Arms length pricing" for property transactions.
10. Directions for Framing Rules and Legislative Measures:
The court directed various authorities to consider framing rules and legislative measures to address the issues highlighted. These included framing rules by the Bar Council of India and the Central Government for disqualification from enrollment of advocates involved in criminal acts, providing a column in the enrollment application for criminal case details, and setting up a National Land Stock Exchange. The court also directed the State of U.P. to register property dealers and scrutinize their income for unaccounted wealth.
Conclusion:
The court emphasized the need for stringent measures to address the criminal activities within the legal profession and restore public faith in the judicial system. It directed the SIT (CBI) and other authorities to continue their investigations and submit progress reports. The court also highlighted the importance of regulating the realty sector and suggested various legislative and administrative measures to curb black money and illegal activities.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1327
Issues involved: Appeal against assessment order u/s 144 for AY 2005-06, determination of net profit percentage, reliance on past history and comparable cases, opportunity to A.O. under Rule 46A, applicability of section 44AD, burden of proof on assessee.
Summary:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai pertained to the assessment year 2005-06, where the assessee, engaged in civil construction, declared income based on a total turnover. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applying a net profit rate on gross receipts. The CIT(Appeals) subsequently reduced the net profit rate, leading to the Revenue's appeal on various grounds.
The Revenue contended that the assessment u/s 144 was justified due to the assessee's failure to produce necessary books of accounts and vouchers. It was argued that the CIT(Appeals) erred in reducing the net profit rate without proper evidence, especially considering significant cash expenses. Additionally, the Revenue raised concerns regarding the CIT(Appeals) relying on new evidence without providing an opportunity to the A.O. under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal observed that the A.O.'s application of a 10% net profit rate lacked evidential basis and should have considered past history or comparable cases. Citing a relevant Special Bench decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adopting a suitable net profit rate based on factual grounds. In this case, the A.O. made an ad hoc addition without proper reference, while the CIT(Appeals) adopted a 2.5% rate, which was upheld by the Tribunal due to the absence of an appeal from the assessee.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(Appeals) order. The decision was pronounced on 22nd December 2010.
........
|
9911796707
